veto_postmortem

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context about generating a 'blameless postmortem' with specific outputs (five-whys, action items, correlation with past verdicts), but it does not detail side effects or data access requirements beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys inputs, output, and key features. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (one required, one nested object) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the transformation from input to output and mentions correlation with council data. However, it does not clarify the output format or what 'blameless' entails, leaving some minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%—all five parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description's mention of 'incident description + timeline' adds high-level context but does not provide new details per parameter beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool transforms an incident description and timeline into a blameless postmortem with five-whys RCA, action items, and correlation with past council RED verdicts. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from similar siblings like veto_rca (focused solely on RCA) and veto_council_debate (which is about debate outcomes).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for generating postmortems after incidents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like veto_rca for simpler RCA or veto_full_review for broader analysis. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.